Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[JAHS]

I knew a clarification would come and this is almost exactly what I thought it would say.

Let's see how many still show up to the mass resignaton event.

Edited November 13, 2015 by JAHS

[CV75]

In short, the policy was written poorly. It will apply in many fewer instances than if it were literally applied.

These things are often said about scripture, too, but only as a matter of opinion!

[bluebell]

Awesome! I always assumed and hoped such clarification was coming.

Looks like Dehlin caused a lot of hurt and pain that was completely unnecessary by leaking the policy change before the brethren were ready to ask bishops to put it into practice.

[filovirus]

I just hope bishops held onto letters of resignation for those who wish to maintain membership.

[CV75]

Also this:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/commentary-understanding-the-handbook

Here's a good Ensign article that might have helped some folks had they read it in September: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/church-handbooks-the-written-order-of-things?lang=eng

[CV75]

I knew a clarification would come and this is almost exactly what I thought it would say.

Let's see how many still show up to the mass resignaton event.

Or maybe they will just have to clarify why they are resigning...

[Tacenda]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37345295

 

ETA:  Well not much here, thought it had footage of a new released statement. Looks like only the children of SSM couples can't get baptized under the age of 18.  Wish they had made that clear in the beginning.  Would have saved a lot of trouble.  But still ostracizes our gay members more than ever has been. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by Tacenda

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I knew a clarification would come and this is almost exactly what I thought it would say.

Let's see how many still show up to the mass resignaton event.

Tens upon tens, surely.

[Buckeye]

These things are often said about scripture, too, but only as a matter of opinion!

 

Everything's opinion. In this case, the fact that the FP needed to issue a clarifying letter - a letter specifically addressing the issues of joint custody and children who are already baptized but not yet ordained - shows definitively that the policy was not clearly written in the first instance. If it had been clear, there would have been no need for clarification. 

[Deborah]

What some of us were saying all along. People tend to react too quickly to headlines, which are often misleading.

[Buckeye]

Awesome! I always assumed and hoped such clarification was coming.

Looks like Dehlin caused a lot of hurt and pain that was completely unnecessary by leaking the policy change before the brethren were ready to ask bishops to put it into practice.

 

Dehlin can be a pain, but the church should have known that a leak would happen almost immediately. This policy would start affecting children set to be baptized this weekend. If not by Dehlin, the media would have picked it up from someone.

 

Still, this is very good news. The vast majority of children who would have been affected are found in split-custody situations. This letter lessens the impact significantly.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

What some of us were saying all along. People tend to react too quickly to headlines, which are often misleading.

 

Actually, here the headlines got the gist right (at least the DN and other church-friendly sources). It was the actual wording of the policy that lead to confusion.

[bluebell]

Dehlin can be a pain, but the church should have known that a leak would happen almost immediately. This policy would start affecting children set to be baptized this weekend. If not by Dehlin, the media would have picked it up from someone.

Dehlin is shameless in his need to stay relevant to the news media, and he threw a whole bunch of people under the bus trying to feed that need.

I'm not going to blame the church for the mess he created. Expecting private communication to remain private is not at all unreasonable.

[bluebell]

Actually, here the headlines got the gist right (at least the DN and other church-friendly sources). It was the actual wording of the policy that lead to confusion.

The tribune's headline on the day the policy was leaked was that the church declared children of gay parents apostates. Another headline I read the next day said that the church had banned children of gay parents.

[Buckeye]

Dehlin is shameless in his need to stay relevant to the news media, and he threw a whole bunch of people under the bus trying to feed that need.

I'm not going to blame the church for the mess he created. Expecting private communication to remain private is not at all unreasonable.

 

Dehlin is shameless. So what? Do really think that if he was in a coma this past 2 weeks that things would have been much different? The policy would have still leaked. The blogs and media would have gone just as nuts. I think you're giving Dehlin way too much credit.

 

The policy is not a private communication. It is a church policy. Limiting access to CHI 1 does not make things private. It just means slows the dissemination. Most bishopric members I know would be happy to let me read their copy of the CHI 1 if I asked.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Buckeye

[Tacenda]

https://www.mormon.org/me/1NXZ/Christian

 

Is there any room for this guy?  C/P part of his post on the I'm a Mormon campaign below.

 

"I joined the Church at a very young age and grew up attending without my family — who were, by and large, not religious. Today, I'm the recipient of a wealth of spiritual experiences which confirm, affirm, and inform my walk with God and with my fellow Mormons. I love that as a Mormon, I'm taught to run towards heaven and not away from hell; I'm taught that I am truthfully a child of God — in a way that is more literal and comforting than I've seen in any other faith; I'm taught that hell isn't filled with people of other traditions, but people who had a perfect knowledge of God and rejected Him entirely; I'm taught that intelligence is the glory of God, that joy is the reason for our creation, and that friendship is an eternal principle. As a gay man who understands that my orientation is a gift and not a curse, I've often been asked how it is that I could possibly be part of a Church that so thoroughly misunderstands who I am and my value in the eyes of my Father in Heaven. It's hard, I say. I pray for change… but I also pray for patience. I was born gay … and I chose to be Mormon. And being Mormon is a choice I make every day. It's not always an easy choice — but it's mine. The Church is a work in progress. Just like me."

[JAHS]

I guess this still leaves out children under 8 years old. I suppose the following applies in those cases:

 

"As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions."

[Buckeye]

The tribune's headline on the day the policy was leaked was that the church declared children of gay parents apostates. Another headline I read the next day said that the church had banned children of gay parents.

 

The first reports from friendly sources (KSL, DN) suggested that custody was a consideration. That's precisely what we were all arguing about a week ago today. I thought the media was wrong because the plain language of the policy says "a parent" and doesn't speak to custody; so the literal application would be to children in split-custody families. That's what I mean when I say that those media (KSL, DN, etc.) got the "gist" right - the policy apparently was never meant to cover children who are not primarily with a SS couple. Unfortunately, despite intentions, the policy wasn't written that way.

[Nofear]

I predict that those most vocal critics this past week will not be assuaged.

[bluebell]

Dehlin is shameless. So what? Do really think that if he was in a coma this past 2 weeks that things would have been much different? The policy would have still leaked. The blogs and media would have gone just as nuts. I think you're giving Dehlin way too much credit.

The policy is not a private communication. It is a church policy. Limiting access to CHI 1 does not make things private. It just means slows the dissemination. Most bishopric members I know would be happy to let me read their copy of the CHI 1 if I asked.

I'm giving him the credit he wants and deserves. Every article I've read this week about the policy change has quoted him as leaking the policy and has also used him as an authoritative source, quoting him specifically.

The policy was not set to go out to bishops yet and was only being shared privately in preparation when it was leaked.

It's dumb to blame the church for someone else's actions.

[Danzo]

The first reports from friendly sources (KSL, DN) suggested that custody was a consideration. That's precisely what we were all arguing about a week ago today. I thought the media was wrong because the plain language of the policy says "a parent" and doesn't speak to custody; so the literal application would be to children in split-custody families. That's what I mean when I say that those media (KSL, DN, etc.) got the "gist" right - the policy apparently was never meant to cover children who are not primarily with a SS couple. Unfortunately, despite intentions, the policy wasn't written that way.

 

I think it is interesting when we try to apply rules of statutory construction on a document that was not intended to be a legal document.

[Rivers]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37345295

ETA: Well not much here, thought it had footage of a new released statement. Looks like only the children of SSM couples can't get baptized under the age of 18. Wish they had made that clear in the beginning. Would have saved a lot of trouble. But still ostracizes our gay members more than ever has been.

Am I the only one who already understood this point? I thought that part was already clear.

The part I wasn't sure about was the status of already baptized children.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Rivers

[Buckeye]

I think it is interesting when we try to apply rules of statutory construction on a document that was not intended to be a legal document.

 

Of course it's a legal document. It's a written corporate policy. 

[Danzo]

Of course it's a legal document. It's a written corporate policy. 

 

Don't have much experience with law do you?

 

Huge difference between laws and policy

 

I am currently preparing for a trial right now.   

 

The policies of respondent have no bearing at all on legality of what the respondent did.

 

The actual law does.  It is important to know the difference.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Danzo

[jwhitlock]

I agree that this was the most likely clarification that was going to come. It is, after all, consistent with the church's overall teaching on children.